Technological unemployment is (almost) here

[CryptInvest]

I think the first solution is preferable

[1715298572]

1715298572

[1715298572]

1715298572

[STT]

I dont believe in import taxes, I think the 1930's law demonstrated that it hurts the internal economy by removing efficient sources of production from both business and people.   Trade balance is needed but any time they force an issue with taxes or laws, its on the wrong road imo and I think it ends badly.   Some countries can just make stuff cheaper, so let them and focus on more specialised industry.   This was the original intention behind wider higher education and then it got corrupted by gov debt funding, etc

Spotted this and figure its relevant.   All the jobs technology has destroyed, tech so bad!  http://t.co/SLb9XKxQpw

[Nicolas Dorier]

It doesn't matter in planned economy because both oil miners and it's consumers (refineries, chemical plants, gasoline stations) are owned by single body therefore there are no price mechanism at all!

Ok and how are you getting the money to ask Iran or Irak to give you their petrol with a planned economy ?
If they -Iran or Irak- control the supply, you will need to give more money to get petrol, money you can only have through the labor of your country.
And guess what ? when someone does not have an incentive to do better work, because of planned economy he will not. This is common human psychology.
Without a productive labour, you will loose capital and buy less and less goods aboard.

Private companies had interest in this war and lobbied the US govt!

Sure they have interest. But they would never attacked the Iran and Irak without military power at disposition.
Don't forget that the US govt, also have an incentive since they would control petrol supply in place of Saddam Husseim through taxation, or embargo upon his enemy. (or control supply upon its own citizen as an hidden tax)
Any finger pointing at Saddam Husseim for using this weapon is stupid. Any government would do that.

I would not be surprised about secret favor of companies given to the political body.
A planned economy would have changed nothing to this problem. As state need oil company runned by competent men. And competent men does not work when their incentives are robbed.

But US gov is the one in charge to push the war button. Not companies.
US Citizen have not elected an oil company to push the button. They hired the congress and the president, they are the one in charge, and the one that faulted.

[giantdragon]

It doesn't matter in planned economy because both oil miners and it's consumers (refineries, chemical plants, gasoline stations) are owned by single body therefore there are no price mechanism at all!

Ok and how are you getting the money to ask Iran or Irak to give you their petrol with a planned economy ?
If they -Iran or Irak- control the supply, you will need to give more money to get petrol, money you can only have through the labor of your country.

I mean only within the county or economic block of countries who agreed to be governed by single planning authority.

As state need oil company runned by competent men. And competent men does not work when their incentives are robbed.

You have mentioned a widespread fallacy. Along with monetary incentives there are a lot of another ones which are not less efficient.
BTW, read about USSR space program and how it's head engineer Sergey Korolev was motivated "non-monetarily". They have achieved launch of the first satellite (1957 Sputnik) and manned spaceflight (1961 Yuri Gagarin)!

[Nicolas Dorier]

You have mentioned a widespread fallacy. Along with monetary incentives there are a lot of another ones which are not less efficient.
BTW, read about USSR space program and how it's head engineer Sergey Korolev was motivated "non-monetarily". They have achieved launch of the first satellite (1957 Sputnik) and manned spaceflight (1961 Yuri Gagarin)!

I work without any compensation for the bitcoin community with my own time, own money, and own skill. And surely enough, I am not motivated by money.
Let's also note that the creation NBitcoin does not involve trading with parties, so money is not really needed for the project's scope.
Same thing with Sputnik, since the material was provided by gov and not by trade. But the result is that the project belongs to gov.
But, NBitcoin -my creation- is my property, open source, not the one of the government or any other.

If someone would say : "Now, NBitcoin belongs to me and you will work against some garanteed subsistance decided by me (in other word, more than what I earn currently)", I would not have put so much forces in the work, and the work that took 4 months to do would took 20.
What a shame of time and effort wasted. It would be a restriction imposed upon human expression.

No matter how legal it can be.
My labour and my wealth belongs to me, and I consider my responsibility to protect it from any elite or central planning.
And I hope that others will take such responsibility into their hands so I can trade with self driven, self supported, productive and authentic human. And not a bunch of whining bureaucrats not looking beyond their next pay check, wondering why "the world" goes bad because of "complex economic situation".

[giantdragon]

Same thing with Sputnik, since the material was provided by gov and not by trade. But the result is that the project belongs to gov.

In the USSR propaganda told these results belongs to all people (not the ruling elite). And most people believed in this!

[Nicolas Dorier]

Same thing with Sputnik, since the material was provided by gov and not by trade. But the result is that the project belongs to gov.

In the USSR propaganda told these results belongs to all people (not the ruling elite). And most people believed in this!

Property is a simple concept :
Something belongs to me if I a the only one that can trade it without consent. (In bitcoin, I own bitcoin only when I am the only on that get the private key)
Something belongs to us if we need multiple consent to trade it. (multi sig for bitcoin)

If somebody trade on behalf of me, then he owns it, so, to protect myself, some incentives must be in place to prevent betrayal. In a central planning, there is no such incentives to protect abuses from the state.

Very interesting how such simple definition of "property" can be so malleable in the mouth of a politician.
But the workers don't understand why at some times, their economy will vanish. Brain washed to blame companies rather than the behavior of the gov.

But it is easier to point finger at companies, since we can't we get a 100% detailed report on government spending and behavior (down to the thousand of $), yet companies are obliged to provide them.
Sure the workers can't blame the gov, because we can't proove their fraud, since they keep all secret.

And when we see the fraud through leaks, the leakers are demonized, and fraud moralized. I don't point finger at central planning for this, just for central authority that grant right to hide their behavior on behalf of "us". But they are not us.

[aminorex]

As the concentration of power in the hand of few is not proved in a free market (quote me one company that ever got enough capital for mass scale coercion), it has been already been proved in democratic (and non democratic) government.

Large U.S. oil companies have significant influence on the government and many wars were ignited by them in last 20 years.

None of the wars were fought because of oil companies in the last 20 years. Some wars were fought over oil, but not the companies themselves.

Wars no, but some firefights, mercenaries shooting natives, yes.

[aminorex]

But it is easier to point finger at companies, since we can't we get a 100% detailed report on government spending and behavior (down to the thousand of $), yet companies are obliged to provide them.
Sure the workers can't blame the gov, because we can't proove their fraud, since they keep all secret.

The opposite is more nearly true, yet also false.

[Razick]

I don't believe this will be an issue. The economy will need to restructure, but overall technological advanced benefit the economy. As costs are reduced in the industries in which labor is replaced by machines, resources will be freed up for new markets.

Honestly, both of your proposals are horrible. Both will hurt the market and cause dead-weight loss in addition to making government more powerful and invasive. If labor was completely replaced by machines, which is unlikely, then maybe a guaranteed income would be appropriate.

When we get to the levels of automation required to justify either approach, we'll have bigger issues to address such as how to avoid putting machines in control of the entire world...

[giantdragon]

I don't believe this will be an issue. The economy will need to restructure, but overall technological advanced benefit the economy. As costs are reduced in the industries in which labor is replaced by machines, resources will be freed up for new markets.

Your argument is known as "Luddite fallacy" and have been discussed many times in this thread. Unfortunately for you, there is no law of physics saying it will last forever!

Honestly, both of your proposals are horrible. Both will hurt the market and cause dead-weight loss in addition to making government more powerful and invasive.

No action will have much worse effect!

If labor was completely replaced by machines, which is unlikely, then maybe a guaranteed income would be appropriate.

You don't need 100% automation to destroy capitalist economy. I think just 20% of permanent unemployment will be enough!

[Razick]

I don't believe this will be an issue. The economy will need to restructure, but overall technological advanced benefit the economy. As costs are reduced in the industries in which labor is replaced by machines, resources will be freed up for new markets.

Your argument is known as "Luddite fallacy" and have been discussed many times in this thread. Unfortunately for you, there is no law of physics saying it will last forever!

Honestly, both of your proposals are horrible. Both will hurt the market and cause dead-weight loss in addition to making government more powerful and invasive.

No action will have much worse effect!

If labor was completely replaced by machines, which is unlikely, then maybe a guaranteed income would be appropriate.

You don't need 100% automation to destroy capitalist economy. I think just 20% of permanent unemployment will be enough!

This kind of gloom and doom was predicted before the industrial revolution and again when computers started taking jobs. There is just no evidence that this time will be any different.

By the way, you have it backwards the Luddite Fallacy is the fallacy that technological unemployment creates long term structural unemployment:

The notion of technological unemployment leading to structural unemployment (and being macroeconomically injurious) is often called the Luddite fallacy, named after the early historical example of the Luddites.[1][2][3] - Wikipedia

[Razick]

A prediction from 18 years ago proven wrong or at the least premature:

Rifkin's The End of Work, published in 1995, predicted that automation-induced unemployment would begin to be widespread within the following decade due to the sudden and massive development of informational technology. The book focuses mostly on robotics, mentioning the Internet once in passing and the World Wide Web not at all. It calls the new era the "post-market economy",[32] although it does not offer details on what should replace the market. Political philosopher George Caffentzis identified Rifkin as "major participant in the "end of work" discourse of the 1990s" and discounted his argument as "not taking into account the dynamics of employment and technological change in the capitalist era".

[TaunSew]

I don't believe this will be an issue. The economy will need to restructure, but overall technological advanced benefit the economy. As costs are reduced in the industries in which labor is replaced by machines, resources will be freed up for new markets.

Your argument is known as "Luddite fallacy" and have been discussed many times in this thread. Unfortunately for you, there is no law of physics saying it will last forever!

Honestly, both of your proposals are horrible. Both will hurt the market and cause dead-weight loss in addition to making government more powerful and invasive.

No action will have much worse effect!

If labor was completely replaced by machines, which is unlikely, then maybe a guaranteed income would be appropriate.

You don't need 100% automation to destroy capitalist economy. I think just 20% of permanent unemployment will be enough!

This kind of gloom and doom was predicted before the industrial revolution and again when computers started taking jobs. There is just no evidence that this time will be any different.

By the way, you have it backwards the Luddite Fallacy is the fallacy that technological unemployment creates long term structural unemployment:

The notion of technological unemployment leading to structural unemployment (and being macroeconomically injurious) is often called the Luddite fallacy, named after the early historical example of the Luddites.[1][2][3] - Wikipedia

Forgetting one thing here.  The disenfranchised and poor in Britain and Europe was able to relocate to the frontier in the Americas and Australia.  The frontier always had a lot of opportunity and essentially free farmland for any ambitious hardworking man.

The frontier is what prevented the Luddite scenario and all the accompanying unrest.  Even going earlier back, groups like the Quarkers would had likely turned to insurrection in Britain if they did not have an option to emigrate to the new world.  

Things have largely changed now.  There is no "frontier" anymore.  There's no where for the poor in developed countries to go.  If you corner a frightened animal into a corner, it'll attack out of desperation.
 

[Razick]

I don't believe this will be an issue. The economy will need to restructure, but overall technological advanced benefit the economy. As costs are reduced in the industries in which labor is replaced by machines, resources will be freed up for new markets.

Your argument is known as "Luddite fallacy" and have been discussed many times in this thread. Unfortunately for you, there is no law of physics saying it will last forever!

Honestly, both of your proposals are horrible. Both will hurt the market and cause dead-weight loss in addition to making government more powerful and invasive.

No action will have much worse effect!

If labor was completely replaced by machines, which is unlikely, then maybe a guaranteed income would be appropriate.

You don't need 100% automation to destroy capitalist economy. I think just 20% of permanent unemployment will be enough!

This kind of gloom and doom was predicted before the industrial revolution and again when computers started taking jobs. There is just no evidence that this time will be any different.

By the way, you have it backwards the Luddite Fallacy is the fallacy that technological unemployment creates long term structural unemployment:

The notion of technological unemployment leading to structural unemployment (and being macroeconomically injurious) is often called the Luddite fallacy, named after the early historical example of the Luddites.[1][2][3] - Wikipedia

Forgetting one thing here.  The disenfranchised and poor in Britain and Europe was able to relocate to the frontier in the Americas and Australia.  The frontier always had a lot of opportunity and essentially free farmland for any ambitious hardworking man.

The frontier is what prevented the Luddite scenario and all the accompanying unrest.  Even going earlier back, groups like the Quarkers would had likely turned to insurrection in Britain if they did not have an option to emigrate to the new world.  

Things have largely changed now.  There is no "frontier" anymore.  There's no where for the poor in developed countries to go.  If you corner a frightened animal into a corner, it'll attack out of desperation.
 

I disagree, the "new places to go" aren't restricted to land. When resources are freed up to move to new markets, often away from necessities which are now more abundant to recreation and luxuries, new markets open up. This has been happening almost constantly since the industrial revolution, and availability of land has almost nothing to do with it.

[giveBTCpls]

3D printers will be key. When 3D printers are affordable and everyone and their mother has one and they just can download open source free printeable materials ranging from simple figures to complex machines and assemble them, the industry will collapse since most of it will be do-it-yourself, there's no monterary system that can survive when technology goes this far. Deal with it.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Just to give the Luddites a shiver up their spine ...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-07/minimum-wage-hikers-worst-enemy-spotted-china

... and if you truly cannot see any new frontiers your imagination is as devoid as your faith in humanity ... try looking up?

[am]

Alternative solution is to reject free market capitalism entirely and switch to the planned economy.

That's probably plausible but any sane person/people should reject this. Capitalistic societies move the world forward.

[giantdragon]

That's probably plausible but any sane person/people should reject this.

When tech unemployment will hit hard desperate masses will simply pitchfork this "sane" person!

[pikabit]

universal civilian pay or it's game over